Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review

Open access
Prosdocimi, Massimo, Tarolli, Paolo, Cerdà, Artemi·2016·Earth-Science Reviews

Abstract

Abstract Among the soil conservation practices that are used, mulching has been successfully applied to reduce soil and water losses in different contexts, such as agricultural lands, fire-affected areas, rangelands and anthropic sites. In these contexts, soil erosion by water is a serious problem, especially in semi-arid and semi-humid areas of the world. Although the beneficial effects of mulching are known, further research is needed to quantify them, especially in areas where soil erosion by water represents a severe threat. In the literature, there are still some uncertainties about how to maximize the effectiveness of mulching to reduce the soil and water loss rates. Given the seriousness of soil erosion by water and the uncertainties that are still associated with the correct use of mulching, this study review aims to (i) develop a documented and global database on the use of mulching with vegetative residues; (ii) quantify the effects of mulching on soil and water losses based on different measurement methods and, consequently, different spatial scales; (iii) evaluate the effects of different types of mulches on soil and water losses based on different measurement methods; and (iv) provide suggestions for more sustainable soil management. The data published in the literature have been collected. The results showed the beneficial effects of mulching in combating soil erosion by water in all of the environments considered here, with reduction rates in the average sediment concentration, soil loss and runoff volume that, in some cases, exceeded 90%. However, the economic feasibility of mulching application was not readily available in the literature. Therefore, more research should be performed to help both farmers and land managers by providing them with evidence-based means for implementing more sustainable soil management practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.006

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Prosdocimi, M., Tarolli, P., & Cerdà, A.
Venue
Earth-Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
161
Pages
191-203
ISSN
0012-8252 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2512312809
Cited by
386
References
5
FWCI
31.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.006
The paper
Prosdocimi, M., Tarolli, P., & Cerdà, A. (2016). Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.